Is spanking child abuse?

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

If one were to appear in court after disciplining one's wife....

You should never discipline your wife for anything which makes this a silly comparison. A parent SHOULD discipline their child.

It walks a fine line of abuse vs discipline. There are other ways to discipline a child. Hitting sends a bad message.

a child is small and cant defend themselves. a parent is a giant compared to a kid. if you want your kid to behave and act like an adult treat them like one. a great idea would be to actually talk to their kids...

hitting your children is lazy parenting.

Bad example wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

If one were to appear in court after disciplining one's wife....

You should never discipline your wife for anything which makes this a silly comparison. A parent SHOULD discipline their child.

You have avoided the point. Perhaps because of an inability to see.

1) It is NOT a matter of whether one needs "discipline". It is a simple fact that what is being called "spanking" is actually beating. There is no way to avoid this simple fact.

2) Only the ignorant use beating as a form of discipline. Please see Charles Barkley's recent politically incorrect comments.

Making the transition away from ignorance is always challenging. But if you ask any parent who has made that transition to look back and comment on "spanking" they will invariably look at you as if they were looking back on a bad dream - "How I ever thought that was the way to treat a child I can't even begin to imagine!"

Destruction of Mammoth wrote:

Nick Symmonds ‏@NickSymmonds

I'm not a parent, but hitting a child (including spanking) should be considered assault. No excuse for it.

I disagree with Nick. I think AP was way out of line but I think more kids could of used a spanking.

YOu need to apply some context here. Spanking has a legal definition. Roughly Its an open hand to the butt that doesn't do damage.

What Peterson did was not spanking. He whipped the kid and broke skin all over his lower extremities, including his gonads.

Peterson should get same, then he should be locked up. This is a 4 year old boy who was whipped. He should get 10 years.

As far as spanking being child abuse.... it is like porn, you know it when you see it. Spanking can be very effective without even hurting the child.

Nick Symmonds is a really nice guy. I have met him a few times. But he is way off, here. He has no kids.

If I have a 2-year-old who runs into a busy street. I pick him up, tell him "NO" and give him a pop on the bottom. Believe me, that makes a much bigger impact than calmly trying to explain that cars are dangerous.

You cannot reason with children under a certain age. Imagine trying to reason with a dog. A firm pop on the bottom (which is often diapered, anyway) can be a very effective manner of discipline.

You do not paddle or whip or hit repeatedly, though. That is not discipline; that is beating.

Destruction of Mammoth wrote:

Nick Symmonds ‏@NickSymmonds

I'm not a parent, but hitting a child (including spanking) should be considered assault. No excuse for it.

I disagree with Nick. I think AP was way out of line but I think more kids could of used a spanking.

YOu need to apply some context here. Spanking has a legal definition. Roughly Its an open hand to the butt that doesn't do damage.

What Peterson did was not spanking. He whipped the kid and broke skin all over his lower extremities, including his gonads.

Peterson should get same, then he should be locked up. This is a 4 year old boy who was whipped. He should get 10 years.

For the record, I see that you guys are discussing a specific incident involving AP. I have no idea what that incident is and I am not referring to that. I am simply talking about spanking in general, which means a single, open hand slap to the bottom.

2 year olds run into the street because they lack impulse control. Kids do not fully grasp impulse control until they are in kindergarten. And even then, it can still be a battle. When you hit a little kid because they have no impulse control, they do not suddenly learn impulse control. They do learn to fear their parents. That may create the impression that kids are becoming obedient, but the reality is that they are only fearful and learn nothing. When kids fear their parents, they withdraw from their parents and do not actually learn the important lessons that, ironically, parents who engage in corporal punishment think that they are teaching.

Precious Roy wrote:

2 year olds run into the street because they lack impulse control. Kids do not fully grasp impulse control until they are in kindergarten. And even then, it can still be a battle. When you hit a little kid because they have no impulse control, they do not suddenly learn impulse control. They do learn to fear their parents. That may create the impression that kids are becoming obedient, but the reality is that they are only fearful and learn nothing. When kids fear their parents, they withdraw from their parents and do not actually learn the important lessons that, ironically, parents who engage in corporal punishment think that they are teaching.

Another one who understand something that should be quite simple.

Thanks.

That is a gross generalization. Spankings teach consequences. This is something a lot of kids are missing. Communication and explanations can go along with a spanking to teach a lesson and change bad behavior. That is how is should be done.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

2 year olds run into the street because they lack impulse control. Kids do not fully grasp impulse control until they are in kindergarten. And even then, it can still be a battle. When you hit a little kid because they have no impulse control, they do not suddenly learn impulse control. They do learn to fear their parents. That may create the impression that kids are becoming obedient, but the reality is that they are only fearful and learn nothing. When kids fear their parents, they withdraw from their parents and do not actually learn the important lessons that, ironically, parents who engage in corporal punishment think that they are teaching.

Another one who understand something that should be quite simple.

Thanks.

Another two douchebags who have no children (but all the answers).

The consequences of running into the street are possibly death. Spanking is a function of observation. If your parents catch you, you will be spanked. If they don't catch you, you will not.

People assume that the trust children have in them as parents when they are 1 will continue for a lifetime. It won't. It can quickly be eroded, especially in an erratic parent who spanks a child our of fear, capriciously, or when the child is trying to continue to be honest with the parent, "I ran into the street and I thought you should know", etc.

Corporal punishment instils fear and distrust of parents. Nothing else. The risk of getting hit by a car, getting burnt etc is always there. The fear a parent feels is something that beating your child will not eliminate. It is better to just get used to that uncertainty.

As a HS coach for the last 20 years my worst behaved kids are products of "time out" parents. Kids that were spanked have a better understanding of respect.

I even coached a kid that was convicted of murder. His mother was a child psychologist that was outspoken against spanking. FACT

Spanking a child is sexual abuse

Popping a kid on the bottom at age one or two is just about the only way of teaching them that something is right or wrong.

If you disagree, please let me know what is a more effective manner of teaching?

Screaming in their face? As was mentioned earlier, you cannot reason with a toddler. That said, you do need to discipline.

You cannot "time out" a toddler, either.

So to the anti-spanking folks... here is a situation, please work it out for me:

I have a toddler who almost constantly tries to stick her fingers or tongue into the electrical outlets. We bought outlet covers but she will remove plugs that are being used. If I catch her doing this, how do I tell her it is bad without scarring her for life?

fast Franny wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Another one who understand something that should be quite simple.

Thanks.

Another two douchebags who have no children (but all the answers).

I have a big family and can confirm these two "douchebags" are absolutely correct.

I'll simplify it for dolts like you: You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

And this isnt to say kids should not be corrected but a firm squeeze of their arm while you look them in the eye is a far better option. Go to your room, sit in the corner, the crib, etc are also far more effective.

Changing/directing behavior in kids is accomplished far more easily by rewarding good behavior than physically punishing bad. Way to many parents provide meager feedback for the good yet start swinging tree limbs for the bad.

You instill values and principles in your child consistently and more often than not they will last a lifetime. Not always but that is true regardless of parenting style.

You alleviate the risk of your child getting runover by teaching them not to run into the street. Better that you don't just let them learn this on their own.

Real-er answer wrote:

And this isnt to say kids should not be corrected but a firm squeeze of their arm while you look them in the eye is a far better option. Go to your room, sit in the corner, the crib, etc are also far more effective.

I would argue that squeezing their arm is probably more hurtful/terrifying than a swift pat on a diapered bum.

Telling a 1 or 2 year old to go sit in their room is kind of hilarious. Are you sure you have a big family?